However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

At around 22:50 on October 9, 2016, the Defendant: (a) reported 112 to the front of the Dong-gu, Ansan-si, the Defendant committed assault, such as the Defendant: (b) paid the taxi fare to the police officer affiliated with the Ansan-gu, the Police Station C police box of the Ansan-gu, the Police Station, and the police officer, who was dispatched to the scene after receiving a report on 112 that “the taxi fare was a problem; and (c) was recommended by the police officer to return home, and (d) cutting off the said D and E’s arms with the hand saw, and

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties by police officers concerning 112 reporting handling duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of each police protocol of statement to E and D;

1. Article 136 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime concerned;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of imprisonment with prison labor chosen;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on probation and lecture attendance order shall be determined within the scope of sentencing standard (basic area: June - January 1) based on the following circumstances: (a) the accused has led to the instant crime; (b) the accused has not agreed with the victim; (c) the accused has been punished four times of fines due to the recent criminal acts of the same kind of violence; and (d) the age, occupation, family relationship, etc. of the accused.